qui_update_instance

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method and argument-passing conventions, but it does not mention side effects (e.g., partial vs. full updates), required permissions, reversibility, or error behavior. For a mutating operation, this is a significant transparency gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and immediately explains how to pass different parameter types. No redundant filler or repetition of schema fields.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that this is a generic REST wrapper with no schema details and a complex update operation, the description is incomplete. It lacks context about what an 'instance' is, what parts are updatable, whether a request body is mandatory, and what the response contains. The presence of an output schema lessens the need to describe returns, but the input side remains underspecified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% coverage and only an empty 'arguments' object, so the description adds necessary value by explaining the path/query/body structure. However, it does not specify the actual path variables, query parameters, or body fields for the endpoint, leaving the agent without concrete parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies a specific HTTP operation (PUT /instances/{instanceID}/) and the resource being acted on. It distinguishes this from sibling tools by referencing the endpoint path, and the tool name 'update_instance' reinforces the action. However, it does not explicitly state what 'updating' an instance entails in business terms, which would strengthen purpose clarity further.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or contrast with tools like qui_update_arr_instance or qui_update_instance_status. The description only explains how to structure the request, not when the tool is appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.